When I say company, I mean "BIg Brand Corporate" Companies.

Profit is the raw amount of money left after paying employees and taxes. I understand that not all companies are greedy, but when your selling a product for x30 the cost to make it, you need to stop and think. If it's going to be that expensive, the least you could do is make it right here in America. I'm not trying to destabilize the free market economy, rather I'm trying to help support it. The limit would be a higher amount of tax on larger corporate companies. Take the iPhone for example; A brand new model costs as much as $300 and even higher, and it's made cheaply in other countries. How about Beats by Dr. Dre? A top-of-the-line set of headphones can cost as much as $200 on average; which, again, are made in China, not USA. Microsoft? Xbox performs just as well as Sony's Playstation, but costs over $100 more for the new Xbox One than the PS4. Not only that, the Xbox One also costs $90 per year just to use online, while Playstation does not. Big brand clothing stores? They sell how many clothes per day at over $20? People would have a lot more money on their hands if stuff wasn't as expensive as it is. Inflation plays a big role, but corporate greed takes it's share of the pie. Again, not all companies are greedy, but the ones that are must be fixed if we're ever going to succeed as a whole.

Companies who make too much money should not be able to have as much.

Think about it. If these big businesses are taking all the money, how is that benefiting other people?There are people starving, homeless, without clothes, sick, dying, and these big businesses are taking all this money in that they don't need, when it could be given to people who actually need it. People like Bill Gates have the right idea. Giving the money to people who need it.

Yes, an excessive accumulation of wealth threatens the integrity of a free market.

As the famous axiom "money is power" suggests, one's extent of potential ability in a free market economy is entirely dependent on his or her amount of wealth. However, money is a finite resource. There exists only so much currency in circulation at any given point in time. Every individual in a monetarily oriented economy possesses a specific percentage of the overall economic wealth. With this being said, the amount of socioeconomic freedom an individual can exercise is in direct proportion to their wealth. Thus, if a group or individual attains a significant portion of the overall wealth, that group or individual essentially has more freedom than other groups or individuals, which could easily be used to jeopardize the freedom of others in the market or even society. This goes against the concept of equal opportunity that sets the foundation for a free market environment, and this topic should be expanded even further to placing a ceiling on any group or individual. While some may argue that this too lies in conflict with the concept of a free market, it should be noted that absolute freedom does not exist. Instead, the topic proposed allows for a greater degree of freedom than in an otherwise unlimited acceptance of profit.

If you have great sums of money you generate the rules acquiring
profit

As we can clearly see in the way that our own economy operates today: With great wealth the rules of the profit game can and are prejudiced to favor a a single economic class and a type of Super-citizen the Corporation- which just so has neither body to kick or soul to lose. Engineered Excess capacity in the labor market, brought about by an illogical series of trade agreements-which were legislated by a government that is just a shadow of big business has thereby kept labor or salaries artificially depressed. With the cost of labor low, the's an immediate corporate payoff of a higher portion of the overall price being converted into profit. This same sort of manipulation of the marketplace's game rules via asymmetric influence over laws that determine taxing loopholes and real tax rates of corporations paying out roughly 1/3 that of the middle class. And what's this Corporate risk and brave enterprise you bear up against? Come out and play in the economy with the variables the rest of society contends. Man up pay your fair share. Oh yes you generate jobs! Now if you all were nonprofits that would be admirable.

Profit cap companies so the wealth is better distributed.

By profit capping,.Means less money going to the rich who really don't need any more cash, they just think they do. This will also ensure that these companies can put more cash back into their businesses and reduce dept, pay workers more evenly and stop the goods from costing too much.

To those saying no, understand the question being asked

Profits are a requirement for businesses to operate or else it wouldn't, that's a given. Excess profits are a different thing altogether. I think those of us saying yes refer to a moral sense of the excess of profits being detrimental in the long run. However I agree also, it is a very grey area if someone is asked to judge where the line is drawn on how much profit is too much, this is also going to be a problem in of itself and will be detrimental to business interests as well.

But consider, if the big 4, Google, Apple, Amazon, and Facebook are worth tens more times than developing country economies, what is it all for ultimately?

I would like to believe that those saying no, also believe that there are self checks that companies will address to themselves as they put on 800% mark up on their products or services.

To those saying no, understand the question being asked

Profits are a requirement for businesses to operate or else it wouldn't, that's a given. Excess profits are a different thing altogether. I think those of us saying yes refer to a moral sense of the excess of profits being detrimental in the long run. However I agree also, it is a very grey area if someone is asked to judge where the line is drawn on how much profit is too much, this is also going to be a problem in of itself and will be detrimental to business interests as well.

But consider, if the big 4, Google, Apple, Amazon, and Facebook are worth tens more times than developing country economies, what is it all for ultimately?

I would like to believe that those saying no, also believe that there are self checks that companies will address to themselves as they put on 800% mark up on their products or services.

Circulation of monies makes the world go round.

It seems the idea of corporate 'greed' is becoming an economic reality. When monies are circulated throughout the country, and everyone has the ability to spend, the economy flourishes. When profit is spent on the company and its employees there is true freedom. When the profits are held, and not used for anything but personal gain, there is a deflation of salaries, inability to spend, and restriction of freedom, and a stagnant economy. Therefore, the ability to spend, and use resources become more and more difficult to attain by the employee. Thus the employee does not circulate monies either, they become stuck in a mire of paying only bills, and not on recreational uses.

A limit doesn't have to be an amount limit like the no votes suggest

The limit may be a percentage, based on worker's pay... CEO pay should be based on that as well. In that case, there still would be no dollar amount limit that a company could make. The 1% should be supporting this. When people have more money to spend, there is more money to be made. So many people are making too much to possibly spend in a lifetime, while others barely have enough to get by. A CEO may buy 20 cars (an extremely excessive estimate), but the employees that would have extra money to buy a 2nd family car could buy hundreds or thousands. Other people get paid to build and sell the cars, those people have money to buy other things... Everyone would benefit from the cycle of money.

There comes a point.

People here talk about hard work and the idea that companies will lose innovative desire. Those are both absurd statements. Having the time to actually go out and build a company is a matter of confidence and desire and in most cases a financial security to make "leaps" into the scary void that is business ownership. There is plenty of hard work going on but there has to come a point. Does Bill Gates deserve all the money he is making every minute? Did he or does he really work THAT hard? As for the idea that people would give up and stop developing new things is ridiculous because people are driven by more things than just money. Money is just the problem in this scenario and needs a limit. I am all for capitalism but people can not be trusted to know their limits in certain cases. Think of it, would you personally really want to be as rich as say Mark Cuban? Why? It is a socially accepted disorder that no one will address, just like overeating, alcoholism, and so on.

No, I am a capitalist!

What is this? Profit caps? Do you realize economically what this would do? This wouldn't even prevent executives making more, since profit is calculated after costs. Profits are used for investment in other companies to employ other people and bring new products to the market. This idea of limits is insane!

If you've ever run a company you would understand

Profit is a requisite to running a company. Companies are not run off good feelings and charm. They are run off of profit. Period. Either that or debt, in which you need profit to pay debt off. Being an employee of a business creates a perception by an employee that money is simply generated. I swear some employees do not understand that a successful company can tank over night. It's a volatile market. Preventing this from happening and preventing a business from going under requires a large amount of capital reserves. I know because I personally run two companies and am responsible for many employees. Without profit in the companies coffers there is no security for an employees job if things turn for the worse. Also, without profit you can't invest.

Take a look at Venezuela

For anyone that thinks that profits should be capped, I would recommend taking a look at how Venezuela is doing right now. Every time any government tries to intervene in the economy in such a drastic way, problems are going to arise.

Right now in Venezuela there is a law that limits profits, of any company or person carrying out economic activities at 30 %. But how can the government determine over what costs are companies going to calculate their profit? The answer is, in any way they try to do it, they are going to be wrong. Accountants spend years studying how to calculate costs of different products. There is no way a government can pretend to regulate costs or prices in such an absolute manner.

The result of any price control regulation regime is easy to foresee, price controls bring forth a decrease in production and it in turn brings forth a decrease in the offer of products available to the public, which finally will result in a widespread shortage of products, and all sorts of economic and social unrest.

Once again, you only have to take a look at Venezuela. (http://www.Bloomberg.Com/news/2015-01-09/venezuelans-throng-grocery-stores-on-military-protection-order.Html)

The best way to regulate prices and therefore profits, is through the market itself. If people don't buy a product because they consider it to be too expensive, the company or person selling it will ultimately have to reduce the price.

Profits should not be restricted

If profit is restricted, companies will put less emphasis on developing new products & services, why work harder if you are not going to be paid for it? Taxes pay for infrastructures & services within the community, the higher the profit, the higher the taxes a company will have to pay.

There shouldn't be a limit on a company's profit

A company's profit shouldn't be limited because that will limit the economy as well. There will be less money moving around due to the limited profit and may cause economic problems. I believe if a company is successful, they should be allowed to make however much they please as long as it is made legally.

Profits leads to innovation

Companies that make profits can spend more money in research and development. It's not like all of the money is going directly into the managements pockets. Sure, execs are getting paid a lot, but that's not the point. If these companies do not continue with R&D, they will risk losing everything to competitors.

More Profit = More Growth = More Employees = More Economic Activity = A Stronger Economy

The more successful and profitable a company becomes, the more employees they need to hire to sustain their growth. Successful companies can afford to offer more benefits and opportunities to current and potential employees. They also indirectly create other jobs because the more a company grows, the more goods and services it will need to purchase from other companies, thus stimulating growth in other sectors as well, which will help those companies grown and profit too, so they'll need to hire more employees.

All the employees will know that their employer is doing very well, and they'll feel that their is secure and that they have a bright future at work, so they'll be more apt to spend money and buy big-ticket items such as houses and cars. This in turn generates even more economic activity, which is good for everyone.

I work for a successful and profitable company. I am very thankful and blessed to have a good job in this economy. I could never resent my company earning a good profit, because it benefits me and all of my co-workers. We can feel like as long as we try hard and do our best at work, that we have a bright future. We're just normal middle-class people, but our companies profitability is very good for us.

Limit profit, limit production

While big companies making big bucks sounds bad on the surface, think what the effect would be of limiting that. Suppose you set a $1billion cap in profits, would ExxonMobil still be raking in tens or hundreds of billions and just forking it over to the government? No. Its not going to spend hundreds upon hundreds of billions drilling, hiring, researching etc. (Which it does now) to get back 1billion dollars. Its going to break up on its own, and we'll have many smaller companies formed out of ExxonMobil. What's the effect? Loss of efficiency, and HIGHER COSTS TO CONSUMERS.

Stop and think for a second what any rationale businessman would do if you tried creating a law like this. They're not going to just keep operating as they are and fork over all their earnings, no intelligent person would. They'll find their best way to make money which, with your system, would huer the consumer as gas prices soar further.

Capping profits would harm economies

Let us begin with a hypothetical situation. You own a company engaged in the production and sale of widgets. These widgets have become quite popular and your customers want lots of them, so they buy as many as they can afford. That's great for your company, and it's great for your customers--you profit and they get the widgets they want. Now imagine that profits are capped at some arbitrary value, and your profits are approaching that amount. Will you continue to produce widgets? Probably not, because there's no longer any incentive for you to continue production. Now you're not making any money, and your customers are unhappy because they're not getting any widgets.

Economics is not a zero-sum game. For someone to profit, does not mean that value is lost somewhere else. In our hypothetical situation, value is created because you profit while your customers also increase their personal value by getting the items they want. In any healthy economic transaction, value is created, not destroyed.

That's not to say business should be entirely unregulated. Of course some regulation is necessary to prevent abuses. But capping profits is an ill-conceived notion that would cripple any economy in which it was implemented.

Earning money is a right

No one should decide how much another person can make. If someone were to tell you that your salary could not exceed a certain amount, how would that be fair? It would be unconstitutional to decide a limit on profit, not to mention absurd. Why should there be a limit?